The Anglo-Saxon Mission:
Witness Interview transcript

BILL
RYAN (B): I
want to thank you for coming forward with what was immediately
clear to me, once I'd read your written debrief, that you
have some highly significant information that needs to be
shared. And it's our job at Project Camelot to assist you
in reaching people who are aware enough to understand what
you're saying, why it's important, and to put it in perspective
with other information that they may have.

And
to introduce all of this, I wonder if you could say what
it is that you're prepared to say on record about your background,
about your history... just in general what you think is okay
to share about how it is that you've actually been positioned
to get a hold of the information that you're going to be
reporting.

WITNESS
(W): Okay. Well, the information I've shared with you
already, I feel, it's not Earth-shattering. I feel it's something
that a lot of people will already have grasped with the amount
of information that is getting put out on the internet already.

If
there's any uniqueness within the information that I'm providing
to you, that I feel should be shared, is that it's first-hand
information and it's given to you freely for those who wish
to use it and to inform themselves. I think that that's my
initial position on this.

For
my part, I've spent a long time in the military and then
held a senior position in the City of London, and within
both institutions I became very intimate with events that
were being manufactured secretly, covertly, on behalf of
a group of people -- I can't say it's on behalf of a nation
or a community because it's certainly none of that -- but
it's certainly something is to do with a group of people
whose interests lie within themselves and what they're doing
to coerce a series of events to happen.

Looking
back with hindsight now, I can see quite clearly they're
being most successful in doing what they're doing. And I
feel, because of what I know, that time is running out for
these people.

So
the timeline that I'm going to describe is somehow ... and
that's an apt title, really, because a timeline starts somewhere
and it ends somewhere and these people are very well aware
of it.

We're
coming up to a critical time now, which everybody's discussing
at the moment. I'm very well aware of that. But the information
I've brought may put some flesh on the bones for other people
to consider themselves.

And
as for the veracity of it, I can only tell you that what
I'm going to tell you is truthful, albeit lots of people
may think it's a perception. I'm quite happy with that, too.
But it's been my experience, and it's that experience that
I'm going to share.

B: Yes.
What would be great is if you can differentiate between information
which came at you first-hand when you were physically in
meetings with some of these people, and other information
that you've got that was through more subjective means, which
you may feel very confident in. It's important to separate
out the provenance of the information. But for you, of course,
and for many other people who will be reading this, it actually
forms a coherent picture. Right?

W: Yes.
I think that's important. I think anything like this has
to be coherent. And of course there is a subjective element
to it; I mean, I can't deny that. But, you know, all of it
could be looked at as being subjective, but it's also from
a witness point of view. Hopefully, how I'm going to describe
it, people will be able to see through any subjective feelings
I've got about it and get to the core of what's going on.

B: Right.
Now, if you could just add a little bit of detail about the
group that you referred to. Does this group have any kind
of name that they're calling themselves? Is this a group
that other people reading this would recognize when cross-referencing
information?

W: I've
had difficulty myself in trying to describe these people.
I've called them like a "Band of Brothers." I've also called
them an "over-government". There's also other names
I could call them, some of them derogatory, and that would
be deserved. [laughs] But I think the best way, the most
sensible way to describe these people so that people can
understand what they're like, is they're like an over-government,
because that's what they're doing.

B: Are
you talking about British people here, or international people?

W: The
meeting that I will refer to later, it was all British, and
some of them are very well known characters who people in
the United Kingdom will recognize immediately. Those who
are international who might read this might have to do bit
of research on them. But they are national figures, some
of them.

B: Are
they political figures? Or are they figures in the "noble
classes", so to speak?

W: Yes,
there is a bit of aristocracy there, and some of them come
from quite aristocratic backgrounds. There's one who I identified
at that meeting who is a senior politician. Two others were
senior figures from the police, and one from the military.
Both are known nationally and both are key figures in advising
the present government -- at this present time.

B: And
inasmuch as there's a political component to this, does this
political component go across both parties?

W: No,
this senior political component belongs to the right-wing
party in Britain, the Conservative Party.

B: Okay.
For the benefit of American readers, that would be the equivalent
of the Republicans.

W: Yes.

B:
All right. So, it's an insider group that functions in Britain
as many American readers of this transcript would recognize
by analogy -- it's like the American secret government. You're
talking about politicians behind the scenes who are still
very influential, links with the police, links with the military.
Are there also American military links in there?

W: Yes.

B: Okay.

W: One
significant military figure, now retired, but active in advising
government.

B: Okay.
Are you aware of or did you hear any discussion of any participation
by church authorities or the Vatican or any of the religions
of the world? Was this mentioned as part of their strategic
planning for all of this?

W: No.
Not at all, but I know the Church of England, especially,
is complicit in everything that's going on, totally complicit.

B: Okay.
And you know this because of the close relationship between
senior figures in the Church of England and the group that
you met with in the City of London?

W: Absolutely.
You don't need a forensic expert to find that one out. That's
quite open.

B: Okay.
Is this all fundamentally Masonic?

W: Absolutely.
There's no question about that. Everybody is vetted through
that process, through the Masonic process, and then they
get to meet one another.

That's
something that people need to understand. There are levels
in Masonry. You know, most Masons don't really know anything
at all, and they're out there doing good work for the most
part and they get the benefit of a kind of "club," as it
were. But that goes through various levels. Some people call
it by "degrees" or whatever. But it's a Who's Who. That is
-- who can be trusted, who can be brought together, who's
holding power, who's likely to develop more power.

And
these people attract one another and they get together because
they all have a single cause. But it's not exactly like a
Masonic cause, you know. It's something that can be likened
to it, but not the same as it.

B: Could
you explain that a little more clearly?

W: Well,
I think the best way to explain this is: Masonry, is
to my knowledge, is just a vehicle for these people. It allows
them to come together quietly, in secret, behind closed doors,
get to know one another, feel safe and secure knowing confidently
that what's said in these meetings go no further than those
meetings. So it's got that Masonic element to it, but this
goes to an entirely different level altogether.

Now,
the meeting that I'm talking about, I don't even consider
these people to be a significant level -- significant enough
for me at the time -- but they were discussing things that
were already agreed upon and planned and dictated. They were
really getting together to share information, to find out
how well it was going and what was needed to keep it on track.

B: So
things had already been decided at an even higher level than
this. Is that what you're saying?

W: That
was very clear. From what I heard, they weren't a decision-making
group. They were like an action group. They were people who
needed to come together now and then to discuss together
what needs to be done, or what is getting done, and what
should be getting done. And then they disperse and go back
and do what they need to do, as a result of these meetings.

B: Okay.
And you attended one meeting?

W: Only
one.

B: And
in what capacity did you attend this meeting?

W: By
sheer accident! I thought it was a normal three-monthly meeting
because I looked at the e-mail list, which had familiar names
on it, and I was on it. But by that time, because of the
senior position I held within the City, I just thought it
was quite normal for me to be earmarked for this kind of
meeting.

So
when I went to the meeting, it wasn't the same venue as before.
It was a livery company venue, which is quite unusual, but
not too unusual to wonder why. I went to this meeting and
it was not the meeting that I was expecting. I believe I
was invited... it was because of the position I held and
because they believed that, like themselves, I was one of
them.

B: So
you were included because they already knew you. You were
regarded as a safe pair of hands.

W: Absolutely.
Yes. I was a safe pair of hands. I was a do-er. I was one
of the people who, at my level within the organization, got
things done.

B: Okay.

W: And
I was regarded as that. Lots had known me for some time,
even the most senior figures within them. I mean, it
was first-name terms, that sort of thing. And I'd also been
regularly invited to various functions, social functions,
and things like that where I became familiar with some of
them and some of them became very familiar with me.

So
it was easy-going, quite professional, nothing out of the
ordinary, although bells started to ring about what they
were up to and what they were doing and the kind of decisions
that they were making, which by and large, I ignored.
It seems unusual, but there was a part of me that wanted
to ignore what was going on.

B: Are
you saying that in this particular meeting we're talking
about, the people who attended the meeting were familiar
to you, largely, and you'd attended other meetings with them
before; but this was a meeting with a difference because
it was in a different location and with a different agenda,
although the delegates to the meeting were basically the
same group? Is that what you're saying?

W: No,
not exactly. I knew most of the attendees at the meeting,
but not all. There were about 25 or 30 people were
at the meeting. And it was looked rather informal, you know,
people getting to know one another, re-acquainting themselves
as people do. There was nothing unusual about that. It was
when the subjects started to come up that my astonishment
started to rise at what was being said.

B: Was
it like a formal chaired meeting around a table, with notes
and water glasses, and all of that kind of stuff?

W: None
of the sort. There were no notes taken -- nothing. It was
really a behind-closed-doors meeting with people talking
over one another, some people holding the audience, spelling
out what their concerns were, catapulting onto other things
that they thought were of concern to them.

And
then describing, which I can only say is the "timeline of
events" that they had anticipated to be happening, to be
on course, and lots of concerns because it wasn't. And what
was meant to happen on the timeline that hadn't happened,
and what actions were going to be taken for it to happen.

And
this is where things started to get quite surreal -- because
I'd never been in the company of people like this, talking
like that.

Now,
the group of people who I was most familiar with, the people
who do the work within the City, they belong to various well
known financial committees; some of them quite diverse committees,
but they all belong to the same organization. These are people
who go unseen; most people don't know who they are. I know
them. I know them by sight, know them by name. I know them
by what they do.

It
was the other people who were there at the time that surprised
me. Three others in particular. There were more people there
who were at their type of level as well who I couldn't really
identify, but three of significance, certainly.

B: Okay,
now when was this meeting? Let's put a date on it.

W: Okay.
We're talking 2005. It was after the May general election
-- that's when Blair was voted back in again. That meeting
definitely took place some time in June of that year.

B: It
is okay to put on record that it was in June?

W: June
2005 is fine. Yes.

B: All
right. Now I wonder then if you could spell out what it was
that was discussed at that meeting.

W: Well,
as I mentioned, I was quite surprised to see the amount of
people who were there. The meeting ranged from several discussions
covering several items or things that were happening at the
world in the time, so there was quite a big discussion about
security within the country. And one of those three key persons
there has now assumed the role over this... is actually doing
it now. He's there now. He's in that position right now.

The
big thing at the time was Iraq. That was on their agenda,
but also, surprisingly, there was lots of conversation and
talk about Iran. And what surprised me and really raised
my eyebrows, was mention, open mention
-- this was people talking comfortably to one another, not
arguing or shouting -- but talking comfortably about
the Israeli reluctance to strike and provoke Iran into armed
action. That was something that really raised the hairs on
the back of my neck.

And
it seemed as if the Israeli government was tied onto what
was going on here and had a role to play which was being
dictated outside Israeli borders. A year later, Israel attacked
Iranian-backed Hezbollah bases in Lebanon.

And
then the second thing that came out that I recall quite clearly
was mention of Japanese reluctance to create havoc within
the Chinese financial sectors.

I
really couldn't understand why they were talking about that
and why that had any importance. What I picked up from this
seemed to be the Japanese government, or those in Japan,
being coerced or ordered into doing something that would
wreck or slow down the Chinese rise to financial power.

It
was mentioned that China was growing too quickly and the
main beneficiary of that growth was the Chinese military,
which was getting modernized, mostly through the money that
they were getting from the world market.

And
then things... and this is where I can't help but be subjective,
Bill. Because at the time I recall I started to feel quite
sick about what was being spoken about, and very anxious
about what was being said.

I
was on the periphery of this meeting and I could feel the
anxiety just rise up inside me because this was stuff that
was getting spoken about off the cuff. It wasn't getting announced to
anybody. This was things that they already knew about.

So
then there was open talk about the use of biological weapons,
where and when they would be used, and the timing. And timing
always appears to be crucial.

And
then there was more talk centered on how Iran must be engaged
militarily in order to provoke the desired military response
from China.

There
was a clear expectation of goading Iran into some sort of
armed conflict with the West, with China coming to the aid
of Iran. Through this goading, either China or Iran would
use a tactical nuclear weapon of some sort.

And,
as I mentioned, these people weren't making decisions. They
were discussing something that had already been planned, so they
were simply sharing their information between themselves.
And it became clear as these discussions went on that the
central issue of this meeting was when the balloon would
go up -- when all this would happen.

Other
talk centered on dealing with finances, resources, protection
of assets, and a control of these resources and bringing
in outlying assets. And I can go through this chain of events
with you now, Bill, if you like.

B: I'd
be really happy to go into as much detail as you feel you
can.

W: Okay.
Now, as I previously mentioned, they needed either the Chinese
or the Iranians to be guilty of the first use of nuclear
weapons in order to justify the next stage.

Now,
I've already added, and this is anecdotal, so it can't be
confirmed. But my information coming through in this meeting,
and from elsewhere, positively indicates that the Iranians
do indeed have a tactical nuclear capability right now. They're
not developing it.
They've got it.

B: Some
say they might have got it from the Russians, maybe. Do you
have any idea about that?

W: I
believe it's from the Chinese.

B: From
the Chinese... okay.

W: It's
because the Chinese technology has been, for many years,
used in their missile systems. They're getting missile technology
also from the Russians as
well, but this is mostly ground-to-air missile systems, that
sort of thing -- defensive weapons. Tactical missile weaponry
-- that technology is coming via China.

B: Do
you have some expertise in this subject from your own military
background?

W:
Yes, I do.

B: Okay,
so this means that in this meeting where you were hearing
this information, you were able to hear this wearing your
military hat, with your military experience, and understand
strategically and tactically what it was they were talking
about and why.

W: Oh,
absolutely. I could have even stepped in and corrected their
terminology because I believe they were getting it wrong,
but they were just describing it the best way they could.

B: Right.

W: So
yes, I do have quite a deep knowledge of those types of weapons,
and weapons systems in general.

B: Weapons
systems in general; sure. Okay, back to where we were, that
was a little footnote that you put in there, saying that
you felt, anecdotally, but you're also confident in that
opinion, that Iran did actually have a current nuclear capability.

W: Yes,
if I can put this in here, Bill, before this escapes me...
it's anecdotal in the sense that the discussion didn't mention
that Iran didn't have
them. The discussion leant toward the Iranians having that
type of weapon and not having them. I think the distinction
would have been made there -- if they didn't have them. It
wasn't mentioned that they DIDN'T have them. It leant towards
them having such weapons already.

B: I
understand. Now, I don't want to get you off track, but there's
the potential analogy with the Iraqi situation, where Western
governments and military, whether they really knew the truth
or not, were certainly telling the public that the Iraqi
military capability was far greater than it really was. Is
it possible that there was some delusion here with respect
to Iran's capability? Or do you think they really did know
what the Iranians have and could do?

W:
Making a comparison with Iraq is a natural thing to do. However,
in this context, I think it could mislead.

The
backing that Iraq got during the Iran-Iraq War was mostly
Western. And of course "Western" we must include Israel,
so the likelihood of Iraq getting a nuclear weapon that they
haven't produced themselves, but getting it imported to them,
would be extremely low.

Now,
the other side of the coin is Iran. Now, Iran is being continuously
backed by China and then later by the Russians; and also
by other countries too. The military market is quite an open
one and in that we can even include the French, who quite
independently export their weapons out wherever they can.

B: Yes.

W: Even
in defiance of conventions in place about the sale of weapons
abroad. But this goes a bit beyond that. We're talking about
a country that's being used quite
well by another country throughout the revolutionary period
-- where they have been seen as an enemy of all the Western
states, and also the Gulf states as well.

B: You
mean, you're referring to Iran being used by China?

W: China.
Yes. They're both using each other, of course. China's
economy is skyrocketing. I don't know if it's reached its
plateau now or not, and I'm not talking about that. But the
amount of weaponry and the level of technical expertise that
Iran is receiving from the Chinese military -- it seems
inconceivable that nuclear weapons haven't been included
within any package that goes there; whether that comes under
the direct control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or
jointly by the Iranians and the Chinese. One can't be sure.

But
I go back to what I said before, that at that meeting, the
assumption was -- and it was quite clear -- that the Iranians
HAD such weapons in their possession because
it wasn't mentioned to the contrary.

B: Understood.
And what you're going to go on to talk about is how this
cooperation between Iran and China was going to be used as
a way to get at China --
because China's the main target. Is this correct?

W: That's
correct. China has been the main target since at least
the mid 70s -- and again, this information it's through third
parties so I can't give you any direct first-hand evidence
of this -- but it's always been China. It was always China
that is to be the big one in this timeline.

B: Mm
hm.

W: It's
China that they're after right now, and it's all about how
to coerce and create the scenario where this type of -- well,
it's going to be war, Bill; there's going to be a war -- how
this can be realized and how it can be made credible to everybody
here living in the West?

And
the way it's going to be made credible is by a state like
Iran being used as a patsy to use a nuclear weapon in order
to elicit an exchange.

B: And
the whole justification of this, then, is to provide or to
trick China into a war, with what reason?

W: China
will then come to the aid of Iran, very quickly. And what
we're talking about is these "Roads to Jerusalem," as it
were. And it should be no surprise that the Chinese have
got their own "Road to Jerusalem," so to speak, because that's
where the oil is -- their lifeline -- and that's where their
power could be extended far more than where it is at the
moment.

B: I
didn't understand what you meant there by Jerusalem.
Was that a metaphor, talking about Iran?

W: Yes.
It was my metaphor. Although I haven't mentioned it to you
previously, you know, they talk about "the road to Jerusalem,"
as it were. People like Benjamin Netanyahu use it quite a
lot. Obama has used it. The Chinese president has actually
used it, I believe, too. Hu Jintao, his name is. They've
actually used this metaphor.

B: I
didn't know that.

W: Yes,
they have. It's where that road lies. Does it lie through
Tehran, going one way? Or does it lie through Tehran again,
coming the other way?

B: Okay,
so you're using it basically as a metaphor for a desired
goal, something that's reached and attained.

W: That's
right.

B: Okay.
So what you're saying, then, is that there's a long-term
plan which has being decided quite a while ago to set up
the situation, to set up the chessboard, the global chessboard,
so that there will be
a war with China. This is what you're saying.

W: Yes,
in a nutshell. You've got it. It's a whole series of events,
and a lot of them have been realized. And again I can only
emphasize that time seems to be critical.

B: What
has happened, and what is yet to happen, and what is the
eventual roll-out plan that they want to happen if everything
that they wanted were to occur?

W: Well,
the plan is for the fuse to be set off in the Middle East
again, in a way that would make the previous conflicts in
the Middle East look like playground scraps.

It
will involve the use of nuclear weapons and, again, it's
to create an atmosphere of chaos and extreme fear, not just
in the West but throughout the world, and to put in place
what I've mentioned as unified totalitarian Western governments;
and to do this China needs to be taken out, politically and
socially, for this to happen.

B: So
what they're doing here, they're killing two birds with one
stone. They're using this as a justification to create what
many on the internet have called the One World Government,
except that's not including China. You're talking about the
Western nations in lockdown alliance against this new threat.

W: It's
specifically the Western nations, but I think we've also
got to include Japan in this too.

B: And
how about Russia? Where does Russia stand?

W: I
believe Russia is a player, but I've got no evidence. For
some reason or other Russia really doesn't get a look in
here; and it's just an assumption of mine that that Russian
government that's in place at the moment is hand-in-hand
with the controlling players that are here in the West.

B: Hm.
So you're saying that because in this meeting that you attended,
Russia wasn't mentioned as a major factor.

W: No,
none at all. The only way it was mentioned is that the whole
idea is to create a condition of chaos throughout the world.
It would mean the later use of biological weapons, widespread
food shortages, which will affect vulnerable countries across
the globe, followed by mass starvation and disease.

The
only mention that Russia gets in here is an odd one which
I can't explain and maybe someone else can. I can't really
get my head around this. But within this meeting it was mentioned:
"to cause the Chinese military to attack Eastern Russia".
Now, I can't qualify that and why that was mentioned at the
meeting -- I just don't know.

B: Okay.
So just to go back to what I mentioned a minute ago, about
two birds with one stone. One goal here, then, is to establish
a united alliance of Western countries with a kind of totalitarian
"emergency war footing", heavy control aspect to it. And
the other aspect is actually to light the fire of this war,
which will result in all kinds of chaos and presumably an
enormous number of people dying somewhere.

W: Yes.

B: The
Chinese population? Or everyone on the planet? Is this part
of the population reduction plan? What did they say?

W: Well,
there was talk about biological agents being used, described
as being flu-like and it would spread like wildfire. Now,
they didn't mention it at this meeting, but I know now that
it will attack people genetically, not everybody together.
How that would happen... I'm not a geneticist, I really don't
know. One can only assume that it's linked to DNA in some
way.

B: Mm
hm.

W: And
the differences that are found in DNA. These differences
have been identified and the viruses can be made that could
kill a person off and do it quite quickly.

B: And
so the viruses are genetically targeted is what you're saying?

W: Yes.

B: Genetically
targeted for racial type, or more specific even than that?

W: Racial
type. I can be quite definite on that. They're talking about extinction of
a whole part of the human race, doing so genetically.

B: Really?
Did they mention that in this meeting, in those terms?

W: Not
exactly. Those are my terms. But this is how it was mentioned,
and this is my recall of it and how this came out and how
I've interpreted it.

B: Okay.

W: But
that's what it most definitely alluded to.

B: Are
they talking about getting the Chinese out of the way because
they're an inconvenient major group that's not playing ball
with the global plans? Or are they talking about this as
an excuse to thin down the entire world's population, including
that in the Western countries?

W: Well,
it's a very good question and as far as I can see, it's a
hypothetical one. Again, I can't give you an answer to that
one. From a personal point of view, it definitely appears
to be a thinning of the world's population and it's getting
it down into a controllable size for this government that's
going to come, in order for them to have the control that
they wish for. Otherwise, they wouldn't have it.

It
even sickens me to speak about this now, it really does.
It sickens me no end that they would go ahead and do this
sort of thing; that such things have actually been spoken
about. They're bringing the population down to what they
coldly believe to be a "manageable level".

B: Can
you reference in this meeting that you attended to those
levels, or the numbers, or the percentages, or anything tangible
that you can remember?

W: Yes.
They're talking about half.

B: Wow.
That's a lot of people.

W: Yes.
It is.

B: Okay.

W: That's
bringing it back down by half.

B: So
that's more than the Chinese, then. That answers that question,
doesn't it?

W: Well,
in a nuclear exchange -- and I believe there will be a limited
nuclear exchange -- there will be some sort of ceasefire.
That was spoken about; they anticipated a quick ceasefire,
but not before millions had already died, principally in
the Middle East.

So
we're probably talking about Israel here, the population
in Israel being sacrificed. Also places like Syria, Lebanon,
possibly Iraq, definitely Iran, you know, the towns and major
cities, power plants and so forth, that sort of thing. And
then a ceasefire before it goes full-out.

B: A
cease...? Wow. Sorry, I'm interrupting you, I do apologize.
A ceasefire before it goes full-out?

W: Yes,
it's like some sort of game of poker where they already know
what hands are going to be dealt. They know what's going
to be dealt. They know that scenario could be brought about
and that scenario can be ended again with a ceasefire. So
we'll have the ceasefire, and it's during this time of the
ceasefire that events will start to really take off.

B: Do
you know how?

W: Yes.
This is when biological weapons will be used.

B: Oh...

W: This
will create the conditions where biological weapons can be
used. And here you've got to imagine a world, now post-nuclear
war, or limited nuclear war, in chaos, financial collapse,
totalitarian governments coming into place.

B: And
a lot of damage to infrastructure.

W: People
living in total fear and panic -- this is what's going to
happen next. You'll have a scenario... and this again was
talked about, and I can go into some detail about how people
will become more controllable with no one coming out in contention
about what's going to happen because their own safety and
security has now being placed firmly in the hands of those
who are saying they can protect it best.

And
it's in this ensuing chaos of a post-nuclear exchange
that these biological weapons will be deployed in such a
fashion where there will be no structure, no safety-nets,
for anybody to counter this type of biological onslaught.

And
it should be mentioned, for those who are not aware, that
biological weapons are just as effective as nuclear ones;
it just takes a while longer -- that's all.

B: Yes.
Now, the deployment of the biological weapons following the
ceasefire, is that something that happens covertly, like
all of a sudden people will start getting ill and no one
knows where it came from? Or is this an overt weapon deployment
that would be very obvious?

W: I
don't think it would be overt, because the Chinese people
are going to be hit by the flu! So there'll be a worldwide
flu epidemic, perhaps, with a country like China -- or China,
because China is mentioned -- being the one that's going to suffer
most.

B: Okay.
Now, if you were a Chinese military commander, what would
you do in this situation? Presumably you would retaliate.

W: Yes,
indeed. The type of retaliation the Chinese armed forces
could provide is not the same as those that are held in the
West. The type of weapons that the West can deploy very,
very quickly far outstrips anything that's within the technological
grasp of the Chinese armed forces at the moment -- although
they're getting better as time goes on.

But
when I'm talking about China, we're talking about the People's
Liberation Army, the People's Army, getting together quite
quickly, and you're talking about mass movements of troops
somehow into zones where they can engage with their opposite
number.

And
in this type of exchange that's going to be nuclear... that's
why I mentioned right at the very beginning... there will
be a conventional war to begin with, then it will quickly
go to nuclear with either Iran or the Chinese being provoked
into first use, is because they won't be able to be in a
position to defend themselves properly against what the West
can deliver conventionally without going nuclear first.

B: Okay.
So the Chinese are going to be obliged to go into a preemptive
strike.

W: Yes,
all their options will be taken away from them... the retaliatory
options will be taken away from them quite quickly and they
wouldn't have time to recover.

B: Okay,
now, what you were describing there was the situation before
the ceasefire, when China was going to be provoked into using
nuclear weapons.

W: I
think it's best to look at this in stages. So we're talking
about a conventional war of sorts; that war then eliciting
the use of a nuclear weapon either by the Chinese or by the
Iranians.

B: Okay.

W: Probably
more likely by Iran, to stop it going any further. Then we're
talking about an exchange of weapons and then a ceasefire
before we have something that's no longer confined to a geographical
area.

B: What
does that look like? Is this global? For instance, are you
talking nuclear weapons on American territory, in Europe,
and so forth?

W: No.
Global nuclear war wasn't mentioned.

B: Okay.

W: It
was just purely geographical, Middle East.

B: Okay.
So actually some people would refer to this as the Armageddon
war, the war that's been prophesied.

W: Yes.
That's right. For those who are looking down those roads,
you know, it certainly highlights a time where this sort
of thing is going to occur. But probably not the way they
thought, because I can't emphasize this too much: people
in general are going to be placed into such a state of panic
and fear that they're going to wish for a strong government
everywhere.

They
won't call them totalitarian governments; they'll be military
governments with the civil government still there but in
a redundant mode. The military will call the shots -- the
same way as a general does in Afghanistan, or previously
in Iraq. The general in command takes over the scene. He
makes the calls.

So
we have to imagine the same sort of thing within a country
where you've got a military-based civil government, calling
the shots, with the so-called elected government almost redundant.
The military-based government will provide the security for
the people who are living in these countries who have yet
to be affected by this type of onslaught.

B: Okay.
What's the timing for this series of events, as best you
know?

W: As
best I know... 18 months. It's definitely before 2012.

B: Okay.

W: Or
around 2012, sometime in that year.

B: Now
somebody reading this will ask: Okay, so this is what
they were discussing in 2005. How can you know that this
plan is still on track, that things haven't changed radically,
that they haven't abandoned it completely, that there hasn't
been some big U-turn or epiphany here? What
makes you so certain that this is still on track?

W: Because
of the events that have taken place since 2005. I think that's
probably the most coherent way to look at it. We've already
had a so-called financial collapse. It wasn't a collapse
at all. It was a centralization of
financial power. That's happened. It's certainly happened
in the United States. It's most certainly happened in the
United Kingdom. It's most certainly happened in France and
in Germany. So all the key players in the Western world centralized
their financial assets.

B: Was
this talked about in the meeting?

W: Yes!
It took up quite a large part of that meeting about how it
was going to happen. Bear in mind where the meeting took
place -- in the City of London. The City is the
financial hub of the world, beyond any question.

B: So
what you're saying then is that all of these things have
happened according to their roll-out of this plan.

W: That's
right -- and all the preparations that need to be in place
before this type of conflict takes place, that's already
been put in place too.

B: Such
as what? What are you referring to?

W: Well
you're talking about key figures taking over. Let's take
a good example here and this is one that probably most people
in the United Kingdom are unaware of, is that the British
private security industry employs somewhere in the region
of 500,000 people, which is far more than the UK military.
The UK military is far smaller than that. The UK military
is only a couple of hundred thousand. You're talking 500,000
people working in private security industry at the moment.

Now
prior to 2005, there was no regulation for that. There was
no training for them. There was no unification of that force
of people. And behind the scenes -- and this is something
people should be able to be aware of, especially living in
the UK -- there was the 2001 Private
Security Industry Act.

Now,
that act meant that anybody working within the private sector
had to undergo certain training. They also had to be police-checked.
It makes a kind of civilian sense for people who are working
in areas of such security responsibility should be police-checked.

These
police checks... everything gets found out. It's not just
if you've committed a crime or not. Believe me, you can find
out far much more about that individual through a police
check.

And
then there's training. This training is all about managing
conflict: what to do in times of conflict, how to manage
it, how to control it. And then they're taught how to use
controlled force. It extends from there.

B: So
you're talking about handling problems of civil unrest and
so on. This is all a setup for that.

W: Indeed.
You can take the protests that took place after the 2003
invasion of Iraq, here in the United Kingdom and in Western
Europe and also in the States, but mostly in Western Europe.
It was almost like a mass uprising against the war in Iraq.
That won't be repeated again. It won't be.

But
the people in this industry need to be lawfully empowered
in order to do their job because they'll still be working
protecting assets, so they'll still be doing their job. And
at the moment as we speak the Security Industry Association
is seeking and receiving more powers on top of the powers
that they've already been given. They've already been licensed
to operate legally within the civilian environment. Now they're
getting the additional police powers they need.

It's
not just for those in the British security industry; it's
also those who are called "civilian enforcement officers":
parking attendants, that sort of thing; community police
officers; those who are aiding the police in order for them
to do their job, they're getting powers commensurate with
the responsibilities that's required to enable them to do
the job effectively. So we're talking about powers of arrest;
powers of detention; we're talking
down those lines. And that's going to happen.

B: Is
this happening in other Western countries as well, do you
know?

W: Well,
it's already occurred in other Western countries, places
like France and Germany, where you've got several police
forces working together. You don't have one police force,
as it were, that you could identify and say: Well, they're
the police. They've
got other agencies and they all carry similar powers.

But
those powers within the UK security industry just do not
exist at the moment. They already exist in the United States
and it's a United States model that's principally being used
here.

B: Okay.
Now, before you got into those details, we were talking about
the timeline -- and I was asking you about what was your response
to somebody who wanted to know how you could be so sure this
was more or less on track, even though the meeting you attended
was four years ago.

W: Almost
five years ago now.

B: Almost
five. Yes.

W: Yes.
All I can say, Bill, is that just take on board what I've
mentioned, and if it does ring any bells with anyone -- the
veracity of what's said can then be checked by themselves
if they wish to do so.

B: Yes.

W: Not
everything's hidden. They can't possibly hide everything,
and then they can put the pieces of the puzzle together themselves
and then they'll find out that it's quite credible.

B: Yes.
I have to admit, it is very
credible, which is very sobering. Right at the start of our
conversation, you said that... this is my paraphrase... you
said that this was a race against time from their point of
view. Why?

W: There's
lots of things going to be happening within the next few
years and it's all to do with power. Some of it, I don't
fully understand myself, to be honest with you. But from
what I do understand, there is quite a lot of power-brokering
going on, and it's principally that those who have been in
control of most of society for not just hundreds of years,
but for thousands of years, wish that control to continue.
And in order to do that, a sequence of events has to be manufactured
in order for that to happen. What I've just described to
you is probably the first part.

So
we're going to head into this war, then after that... and
I can't give you a timescale for when this is going to happen...
there will be a geophysical event taking place on Earth which
is going to affect everybody.

Now,
by that time we will all have been through a nuclear and
biological war. The Earth's population, if this happens,
will be drastically reduced. When this geophysical event
is going to take place, then those remaining will probably
be halved again. And who survives that is going to determine
who takes the world and its surviving population into the
next era.

So
we are talking about a post-cataclysmic-event era. Who's
going to be in charge? Who's going to be in control? So it's
all about that. And that's why they're so desperate for these
things to happen within a set timeframe. Otherwise they'll
lose out.

B: Okay.
Let me play devil's advocate here, and talk to me from your
standpoint of having quite a lot of in-depth military experience
and familiarity with military thinking. Why is the war and
the establishment of the totalitarian government, and the
atmosphere of fear, and so on and so forth, why is all that
needed if there is going to be a major geophysical event,
as you put it, which would further disrupt infrastructure,
result in a lot of deaths, result in all manner of emergencies
all over the world, earthquakes, tsunamis, goodness knows
what. That alone would justify martial law in most countries
and states of emergency and those same factions could easily
justify assuming power in that kind of an emergency. Why
is the war part of this scenario? I don't understand that.

W: I
think you have to look at it from a different point of view.
After a cataclysmic event, there will be little or no structure.
And if there's no structure, that means a structure has to
be put back in place.

A
structure needs to be in place before that
happens with some sort of certainty that it will survive
what's going to come -- so that it can land on both feet the
day after, and then remain in power and have the power that
it's enjoyed previously.

B: So,
it's a justification for strengthening the critical parts
of the infrastructure actually in preparation for the cataclysm
which in routine civilian times might not be so strong. This
is what you're saying?

W: Indeed.
And I'm going into an area where I can only give subjective
views the same as any other person could, but the feeling,
and it's a very intuitive one, is that they've got to get
their act together now. They've got to get their powerbase
properly in place. And the only way they're going to do that
is to create the circumstances for that to happen, i.e.,
a conflict.

And
we can all look back through history. Every war has achieved
an aim. Besides the suffering, the human suffering that goes
on, it's always achieved an aim. And the aim is always on
the side of the victor.

So,
we're looking at this totalitarian regime, which I believe
is already totalitarian anyway. I mean, we do not have a
democracy at all. Nobody's got a say. This has already been
decided over and above anybody.

We
don't matter, as it were. We really don't matter. They matter,
and their power matters, and that's the only thing that's
being thought about it. And I believe if you tapped into
the mindset of someone who operates in that type of way,
you'd understand what they're going to do and why they're
doing it and why they want to control the endgame and be
in power at the end of it, intact, because this geophysical
event is going to be survivable.

B: Do
you have any indications when this is? This implies, from
what you're saying, that they're kind of expecting something
to happen in 2012. Is this a 2012 event?

I've
got strong suspicions that it's going to be something else,
maybe something nice for everybody. I really don't know.
But certainly around that
time we're going to be in a conflict that's going to take
as long as it takes. But we're talking about some years after
2012 when this geophysical event is going to take place.
I've judged that to be in my lifetime.

B: Okay.
So let me feed this back to you, this roll-out of events
you describe: the nuclear exchange and the ceasefire, and
then the use of biological weapons... what you're saying
is that this is going to result in such chaos actually that
it will take a generation of humanity to rebuild all of that.
And during all of that time there will have to be some kind
of a heavy totalitarian infrastructure in order to cope with
this on-going emergency and re-build. And then sometime in
there, there's going to be this major geophysical event,
but they've got to get started as soon as possible. Is that
right?

W: That's
correct. That's right.

B: Do
you think that they know when this is happening? Or do you
think they think it's just happening "sometime"?

W: Yes.
I think they've got a good idea of when it's going to happen.
I don't know when that is. However, I've got this very strong
feeling that it's going to happen in my lifetime, say within
20 years. You could probably bring that back even further
-- between now and ten years; between now and five years.

B: Hm.

W: You
know, I really don't know. I wish I did know. It's something
that I'd love to know, but we've now entered into that period
where this geophysical event is about to take place, when
we consider the length of time that's passed since the last
one which happened about 11,500 years ago, and it happens
round about 11,500 years, cyclically. It's now due to happen
again.

B: Yes.

W: To
what degree it's going to affect the world, one can only
imagine, and I'm sure there's contingency plans in place
right now for that event to happen because I believe that
is widely known within these circles. They understand it's
going to happen. They have a certainty of knowledge that
it's going to happen. They may have a timeframe, and it appears
likely that they have. Again, it's one of these things --
it would be inconceivable if they didn't know. I mean, the
best brains in the world will be working for them on this.
You know? And they know all about it, and personally, I don't.

B: Was
this talked about in your meeting at all?

W: No,
it wasn't openly spoken about. Let me summarize what was
discussed at the meeting:

Iran
will be attacked, possibly within 18 months. China will come
to the aid of Iran, to protect its own interests. Nuclear
weapons will be used either by Iran or China, with Israel
provoking the first use. Much of the Middle East will be
laid to waste. Millions will die within a very short period
of time. And for some reason this is here, and I can't tell
you why: China will move forcibly into parts of Russia to
extend ceasefire lines. Thereafter, biological weapons will
be deployed against China. China will "catch a cold".

And
my own understanding is that there's some sort of malevolent
ET alliance at work for 50 years by the UK and US and other
Western powers, and this includes Japan.

And,
again, when we talk about a malevolent ET alliance that's
in the context of black projects, and this is an exchange
of technologies that's been going on for some considerable
time. So there is an involvement there, and that involvement
I can't fully explain myself.

And
I also understand that there are more humanitarian and altruistic
ET entities working against this timeline and are somehow
maintaining a precarious balance without taking any direct
intervention themselves. And again, I can't fully explain
that but it's a certain intuitive feeling that this is working
and there's other aspects of my experience that's led me
to make that statement -- but that's another story.

So
what we're talking about is the Western powers seeking a
'perfect war' -- doing so throughout the 20th century right
up till the present day, because this timeline goes way back.
So we're talking decades or hundreds of years of time where
this timeline has been in use.

And
also I think it's quite important to associate the timeline
with its other reference which I've heard several times now:
it's called THE ANGLO-SAXON MISSION. I feel that's important
to add because that may ring some bells with some people
as I don't think it's been mentioned before.

B: I've
heard that phrase before. I don't want to digress here, but
the flag which I've got against that -- and actually which
I'm really starting to understand and it's as chilling as
it gets, from what you're saying -- that the reason why it's
called The Anglo-Saxon Mission is
because basically the plan is to wipe out the Chinese so
that after the cataclysm and when things are rebuilt, it
will be the Anglo-Saxons who are in a position to rebuild
and inherit the new Earth, with no one else around. Is that
right?

W: Whether
that's right I really don't know, but I would agree with
you. Through the 20th century at least, and even before into
the 19th and 18th centuries, the history of this world has
been predominantly run from the West and from the Northern
region on the planet. Others have tried but failed.

And
it's safe to say that World War One and World War Two were
manufactured wars. I'm quite sure of that. And they were
used as stepping-stones to get to where they are now. Any
historian will tell you that if that didn't
happen, this wouldn't
have happened. We wouldn't have had the United Nations; we
wouldn't have had the United States of America becoming a
superpower in such a short period of time. They became a
superpower within four years of war. And they ended up with
nuclear weapons.

People,
I feel, have got to bring this into their own personal
agendas. The West becoming the predominant force in the world
is there. It's beyond question.

B: Retrospectively
looking back on it, you can see a sort of long-term strategy
that extends over a number of generations even though one
couldn't see the wood for the trees at the time.

W: That's
the nature of people -- really. You know, we just live our
own lives with those of our families and those close to us
and do the best we can. It's not very often that we
stick our heads above the parapet and have a good look around
to see what's really happening.
We're not very good at doing that, I'm afraid.

I'm
a good example. I've been involved in so many things, I've
just got my head down and just got on with what I was doing,
ignoring what was going on, possibly subconsciously denying
what was happening until I really had to say something about
it.

B: Yes.
Just on a personal note, it must be quite hard living with
this personal experience that you've had of being party to
these conversations and knowing that this isn't just some
fantasy because you heard these people talking about this,
laughing about it.

W: Well,
it was quite informal. I mean, they were very comfortable
talking about this.

How
can I describe the people who I'm talking about better? The
people who I'm talking about are people who exude power.
They elicit fear. They demand obedience and by God
do they get it! And by the way they talk they're dictating
to the so-called elected governments that we've got in Parliament
or in Washington or in Berlin or in Paris. These people exude
that kind of power, and beyond that what can I say?

I'm
sure other people have come across characters like that in
their lives. There's not a compassionate bone in their body.
They do not resonate any spiritual warmth whatsoever. They're
cold, they're calculating. To use a phrase that's common
here, "butter wouldn't melt in their mouth".

B: A
lot of people out there speculate that at some level, maybe
not at the level of the people who you were meeting with
in the room, but at some level, in this behind-the-scenes
government that is orchestrating this entire plan, lies a
non-human intelligence.

And
one of the arguments for that is that it takes an enormous
amount of long-term thinking, strategic cunning, to plan
going over many generations, which is the result of an extremely
high intelligence just to play this chess game on such an
enormous scale. So some people, myself included, suggest
that this must be a non-human intelligence that's behind
this.

W: Yes.
And my perception is that this intelligence is incredibly
logical, without any empathy, without any love, care, understanding
or compassion. They're cold and calculating and logical beyond
any logic that we could muster normally. They go well beyond
that -- they're such supremely intelligent people. These are
people who can produce answers to really difficult questions
without blinking an eye. They are very, very bright people,
but bright only in the sense that their logic is extraordinary.

B: What
can ordinary people do? How should they react? How should
they think? Do you personally feel that this is inevitable?
Do you think we're all doomed in some way?

W: No,
absolutely not. I've often thought about this, Bill, and
this of course is a personal view: We will endure. But to
endure, from one person to the next, is not to work for them
anymore. It's to stop working for them. It's not to react
violently against them because they'll win. They would love
that to happen, then it gives them an excuse. They breed
on fear and violence -- the reaction from fear. That would
be like bees to honey for them. They would love that
to happen.

What's
needed is non-violent reaction: simply just not doing the
job for them any more. To give a comparison, Bill. There
was a man who history has largely ignored. He was a Frenchman,
by the name of Jean Jaurès.
It's always surprised me why this incredible character has
never entered the history books. He's quite well known in
France in some circles, but not widely known.

He
predicted the First World War happening. He wanted the International
Workers' Movement to not comply with the royal families and
aristocracy, and when you read about him you'll find this
out yourself. Just a couple of months before the outbreak,
when the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand took place in
Serbia, Jaurès was assassinated in a French café. They killed
him. He was shot dead, and with him went that movement.

Prior
to World War One, he saw the writing on the wall. He saw
the aristocracies and the royal families of Europe pitting
themselves against one another, in a big battle. He
knew that France and Germany, the United Kingdom were all
industrialized nations. He further realized that being industrialized,
the next war will be an industrial war where millions of
people might be killed.

He
formed a movement which some have termed as communist. It
was the International Workers' Movement, and it's got nothing
to do with politics. His idea was for the ordinary person
not to do anything, not to go to war, just stay at home and
they wouldn't have the war they wanted.

I
personally believe that if non-violence is adopted and people
become more awake to what's happening, then these people
very, very quickly lose the power that they've got. They
feed on power. They feed on fear. So if you take these elements
away from them they become powerless. They need us
to do what they're doing. They can't do it on their own even
though they'll be damn dangerous in any event, but they can't
do it all on their own.

And
that would be my message is just to wake up a bit, see what's
happening about us, put our heads above the parapet and without
fearing to do that, without feeling afraid, take a deep breath,
have a look around, see what's happening, and then people
will soon realize: Oh yeah. Okay. This is where we're
gonna go. This is where we're heading and there's not much
I can do about it. But
they can!

As
I've said, it's not to react violently. And if people are
in positions where these people need them, just don't work
for them. Just stop working for them. Take your labor away
because they need the troops who are going to do this work.
We're not just talking about people in the military. We're
talking about every civilian member in all the populations
right across the globe. Just say: No, because this is not
us. This is not what we want to do.

And
it's making that choice. It sounds ridiculously simple. I
think the execution of it is that
simple and it's well within our power as human beings, conscious
living, breathing, human beings who have a shared compassion
for one another to do that. Because if we don't, they'll
carry on and then they'll realize their endgame.

B: Do
you think, from your own military experience, that there
are enough people in the military who are saying: You
know what? I didn't sign up for this. I'm not going to do
this. Or
do you think that they'll buy into all the justifications
that are being set up at the moment?

W: Well,
by and large the Western military is not a conscripted army.
It's a professional army, and it prides itself on its professionalism.
It prides itself on acting on behalf of the people who elected
the government who sent them out to do the job that they're
doing. It's a very difficult question to answer. And of course,
these troops are superbly trained and they believe, they
wholly believe, as I did when I was in the military, that
you're doing the job for all the right reasons.

If
it became clear to people who are in such professions -- this
is not just the military; we're talking about the emergency
services, the police, all those who've made their way into
the security industry, we're talking about all these people.
If enough voices were heard, then those in the military who
have not achieved any significant rank, who have no particular
stake in the game, will then wake up themselves just as soon
as anybody else.

But
it's got to be borne in mind that the Western powers have
professional military services, and it's a difficult thing
to do to make it clear and let these guys and girls know
that they're not fighting the right people.

B: Sure.
Let me ask a different question. Was there reference to "safe
or safer places to be"? Physically, I mean.

W: No.
None at all.

B: Nothing
like the southern hemisphere is okay, the northern hemisphere
is going to be a problem? Nothing like that?

W: No,
not at that meeting. That wasn't mentioned at all.

B: Okay.
Another question I'd like to ask you, and it's a fascinating
one to debate among people who are tuned in to this whole
area, is a personal one: why do you feel that the benevolent
ETs, and I'm sure that
they exist, why do you think that they don't step in to say: Okay,
guys, normally we're hands-off, but this is getting serious
here and we're not going to allow this to happen. Is
that possible? Why do they maintain such a distance?

W: Well,
first things first. "These benevolent ETs"
-- I don't actually like calling them "ETs"...
I believe that these people are us and we are them.

B: Yes.

W: They've
been around for a lot longer than the regime that's in power
at the moment. This present regime, this power-based regime,
some have called them reptilians, and I've got no problem
at all calling them that because that's exactly what they're
like -- totally cold-hearted. They've been around much, much
longer and they're the ones who have really made humanity
what it is today.

Interventions?
I believe they've been intervening in the best ways that
they can. But we're talking about very spiritually evolved
beings, as the human race is very spiritually evolved -- maybe
that's why we come back here so often, back to this planet.

But
for these people who are us and we are them, as I mentioned,
they don't see time the same way that we understand time
here within the physical world. For them, 11,500 years ago
was a blink of an eye. It was nothing, and they already know
what the endgame is going to be. They believe, as I believe,
that this regime that's in power at the moment who wish this
total dominance over the Earth and everything that's in it,
are not going to win. They're having their time now and their
time is about to end.

B: On
what basis do you feel that? This is very important for people
reading this transcript because some people will be feeling
numbed and shocked at the information that you've presented,
thinking: Oh God, we're really stitched up here.

W: Yes,
I think if you take it from the purely physical point of
view. It doesn't mean that we've all got suicidal minds or
something like that. We all want our lives; we all cherish
our lives; everybody does. We love our lives and we want
to experience them fully in all ways, in the best way we
possibly can.

We're
currently being prevented from doing so because of this regime,
which is based in fear; it's all about fear. And the greatest
fear that we've got physically is fear of death, and that's
part of the greatest power that they've got over us, is this
type of fear, this anxiety that they can raise or lower --
which they're doing all the time.

I
can't think of a moment when this hasn't happened, when this
fear doesn't come out and then we react to it the way that
we do. It seems perfectly natural. But what happens when
we don't, stop feeling this and say: Well, it's only
fear. We can get over this,
then that's tapping into who we really are.

I
don't yet believe there are enough people around at the moment
who know who they are. They define themselves by their own
physical existence, which is all fear-based, and it's cyclical,
and they just can't get out of it. And obviously they need
to find their way out of it.

I
believe, personally, that come this shift -- I call it a shift
because that's what I believe is going to happen; the Earth's
crust is going to shift round about 30 degrees, about 1700
to 2000 miles southwards, and it will cause a huge upheaval,
effects of which will last for a very long time to come.
But the human race isn't going to die off. We're still going
to be here. It's who we are at the end of that -- is where
my mind is. And as for this regime, that's where their mind
is. This is why they're doing what they're doing because
they want to be in control at the end of it.

Now,
if we're talking about intervention, this is when there will
be an intervention by the "benevolent ETs." The people who
are really us, this is when it may happen, but I don't know.
I've got a strong intuitive feeling it will, but at the moment
the situation that we have right now is not conducive for
that type of intervention. Not right now.

They
don't feel it's the right time. And in any event, physical
life is only a very, very small part of who we really are,
so how much importance do you place on that, knowing that
when you walk from this door into the next door, you're back
home anyway?

So
all that's got to be taken into consideration, and I'm sure
there's people out there who could articulate this far better
than I'm articulating this right now. I can only articulate
this from a very personal point of view and that's what I
feel intuitively might happen. And I say might knowing
full well that I can be certain within my own self that that
sort of thing will happen,
and it's just the pain that we have to go through of reaching
that point where this regime will no longer have the power
that they've got.

People
wakening up, finding out what's going on around them and
really having a good look, and raising their conscious levels
as they've never done before, and then everything will click
into place quite quickly. And when it does, the power that
these people have will just fall off them like a towel, you
know, just fall right off them, and they'll be exposed for
what they are.

B: That's
a very inspiring thought. Do you feel personally that...
Let me specify a number of alternatives: That the whole war
might not happen at all; that the whole thing will just fall
apart? Or that all of this will fall apart after the war
but before the cataclysm? Or that all of this will fall apart
after the cataclysm and that the Meek will inherit the Earth,
let's say?

W: Yes.
This is an extremely good question. Let's consider two things:
the first thing is the sheer determination on the part of
this regime, for want of a better word, the sheer determination
that they have to have this done. They're desperate. They're
going full-out for this to happen. They're creating the scenarios,
the in, the out. It's relentless; it's non-stop; there's
no breathing space. And when there is breathing space, I
mean, when people start to relax about things, something
else will pop up to keep us within that grip of fear that
they've generated.

That
is a hugely powerful force that they have, massively powerful,
and it should never be underestimated. It's the sort of thing
that drives good, honest people around the bend, putting
people early into their graves through stress and anxiety.
It's coming away from that and seeing it for what it is.

If
there's enough people who can raise the levels of awareness
and just see what's happening, then everybody else will bring
their heads up. I think it only needs one or two people to
put their head up and just say: Yep. All's clear, and
everybody else will come up. Then you'll see them all around
the world, in various countries, just a new feeling, a better
feeling than what we've had before, and that's all about
individuals empowering themselves by acknowledging who they
really are.

And
it's nothing mystical. It's nothing deeply cultish or anything
like that. It's got very little to do with religion. It's
all about the human spirit and the consciousness which we
live through and that we all share and knowing that consciousness
is undoubtedly shared by all of us -- but is presently suppressed.
And we have to get past those suppressive forces in order
to realize who we are. When that happens -- all else will
follow quite naturally and that regime, dangerous as they
are -- I can't emphasize this too much: These are damn dangerous
people, extremely dangerous -- their power will go.

B: This
is extremely close to what David Icke talks about. It's extremely
close to what Dr. Bill Deagle talks about, and to what we've
talked about a number of times.

W: Yes.

B: That
there's a rise in consciousness going on on the planet, but
they're desperately trying to close the lid and to accelerate
their own plans so that they can put in place the iron fist
of control. Things may get worse before they get better,
but they're not going to win out in the end because consciousness
transcends all the force and all the military might and all
the strategic planning that they could put into place. And
it's a question of that collective consciousness continuing
to expand, as it seems to be.

And
this interview here that we're doing needs to play a part
in that. Because it's not about scaring people witless and
having them all hide in bunkers with emergency food. It's
actually about saying: Listen, it doesn't have to be
like this if we can be as big as we are, and as brave as
we can be, and as strong as we can be, and realize who we
really are. And
if enough of us do that, then this just isn't going to roll
out like that.

W: That's
right. I'm coming out saying exactly this. I realize I'm
not saying anything that's unique at all, but as you're indicating,
it's got to be repeated. People have got to be aware that
there's hope, and things
need not be the way they are. They never needed to be the
way they are. It can be far, far better.

It's
getting over the fear; it's this fear that people need to
get over. We don't have to be psychiatrists or psychologists
or anything like that -- they only deal with the mind. We
don't have to be religious leaders or great spiritual thinkers
to be aware of this, because we all have it within us. It's
inherent within us. So it's a matter of looking into oneself
and then becoming comfortable with who you are; then you'll
have a knowing of what's going on and know that it's wrong.
And everybody else... it will just spread.

Even
those who've been indoctrinated into this regime of fear
will not be able to resist it because to do so is just resisting
themselves and who they really are. And it's a wonderful
thing; it's what this universe is all about and what this
whole experience is all about. And it will make these periods,
these last so many thousands of years, be just... not even
a bad memory... just like: Hm! Well, we've learnt from
that. Okay?
And we'll make sure that doesn't happen again, and that these
kind of characters who can produce this kind of fear, you
know, don't ever get a power base here again.

So,
yes, I think those days are coming and if it does happen
in time -- and 'time' is one of those words that you use very
carefully because this regime is very time-based, where the
human consciousness isn't really concerned with time so much,
but they definitely are because of the physical nature of
the Earth. It does things at certain times. You know, we
have seasons: spring, summer, autumn, winter. The shift that's
coming is just like another season.

What's
going to happen is geophysical change; it's another season,
and a very aware humanity could most possibly take this in
their stride and come out the other end of it very well indeed.

I
know you mentioned about safe places for people to go. I
really don't know. But from a personal point of view, I know
where I should be, and where I should be is where I am right
now. Whether it's safe or not is immaterial; it's where I
should be right now, and I feel comfortable with that.

B: Yes.
When people ask us that question about where they should
be, we always reflect it back and point out that the answer
is going to be different for every individual, based upon
things that no one else apart from them can really know.

Some
people may need to stay put; some people may need to travel,
but the reason for that might be because they've got somebody
to meet and something to do in some other location. It really
depends on so many factors, not just a question of: what's
objectively safe and where should we hide? It's
got more to do with: how can we best deploy all of the
abilities that we have here and now to do whatever it is
that we're here to do? And
that's going to be individual to everybody.

W: Absolutely.
It is. I think the more aware that people become, the fear
factor goes. We don't live in that fear, so what you previously
feared may no longer be a fear for that individual or for
that group of people, for that matter. It just won't be there.

That's
not to say there won't be any concerns, there won't be any pain
or things like that; of course there will. But on top of
all that, the fears that we currently experience, the physical
fears of the uncertainties and the unpredictable nature of
things, will be gone -- they'll just go. We'll be left being
the people who we are, and I think the human race as a whole
is pretty damn wonderful.

B: Yes.
That's a wonderful thing for people to take with them, something
that we've often mentioned. There's a wonderful movie. It
goes back to 1984, a Jeff Bridges movie called Starman.
The starman is an alien visitor who's here for peaceful purposes,
trying to understand the human race because he's got caught
up in a strange situation. And he's trying to get back home.

Towards
the end of the movie he says: Would you like to know
what I find beautiful about your species? You are at your
best when things are at their worst.

I've
never forgotten that line. It's got to do the with the fact that
what's marvelous about the human race is the ability to transcend
problems and reach deep within themselves to produce the
very best out of themselves in the worst situations. And
of course, in the military that kind of situation is almost
a tradition, that under extraordinary pressure you have people
behaving with incredible heroism, and it's that response
to pressure that makes us wonderful.

W: Yes,
it's more noticeable in the military because that gets reported
out. Human consciousness and how we exist through this physical
world is extremely resilient. A good point to consider is
that we may think sometimes we've got a deadlock in ethical
thinking about some things, but we don't really. Things simply
differ from one person to the next which I think is another
wonderful thing because it can keep conversations going for
ever and ever, which is fantastic. The dialog we have
helps us to understand ourselves so much better.

But
it transcends deadlock, I think. It goes beyond that. It
goes beyond what we know to be ethically right and so forth.
It takes it to a different level when these things happen,
when our resilience is tested to this extreme. We're all
capable of doing very wonderful things and it looks likely,
very likely, that we're on the cusp of where that resilience
is going to be tested to the extreme.

I'm
going to emphasize again that we're playing against very
dangerous people, extremely dangerous people, incredibly
powerful people. And I know from my own experience that not
many people have had first-hand experience with that type
of power and how it exudes, and how it affects one's person...
it can make you very, very sick, make you ill to the point
of breakdown. Or you join in with them, become subservient
and be sycophantic to everything that they want to do, because
the people who do work for them and do their bidding -- and
there's quite a large number of them -- are incredibly obedient
and incredibly servile. They're not what you call "free spirits"
at all. You know, they've been taken in, taken in by them.

Maybe
that's something that people should begin to be aware of,
of the kind of power that they hold at the moment, and I
don't think that's been fully grasped yet. People are trying
to see in between the margins to find out what's going on
and getting snippets of information, and those snippets are
going to be very, very important.

But
to act against them in any way, it can be quite disastrous.
I've had that experience and I think many, many other people
have too. So this is maybe why we should tell exactly who
they are, should announce ourselves and be fearless about
it. It's because of that fear... that's at the base of all
that still exists.

B: Something
that we spoke about earlier when we had a conversation a
few days ago was there's a supreme arrogance in these people,
which you've experienced at first-hand, which George Green
described when we first met and talked to him about a year
and three-quarters ago. He said: They think they've won.
They're not worried about anything any more. They're not
trying to silence all the alternative media. Not
really, you know. It's not going to make any difference.
What difference is a couple of voices going to make? The
plan's still going to roll out. It's not going to make any
difference at all, they believe, what you or I might say.

W: Well
I go along with what George Green said. He's painted a far
better picture than I could, because that's exactly what
it's like. They are incredibly arrogant. Along with their
other attributes that they have, there is that arrogance
there. It's quite tangible. Yes. And they're just comfortable about
what they're doing, totally comfortable. They're not hiding
around and sneaking about. I mean, these are quite open people,
some of them, public figures.

B: Okay.
Now, is there anything that we missed? Is there anything
that you wanted to say but didn't have a chance to fully
enlarge on? Is there anything you want to add that I haven't
even asked you about?

W: There's
still such a story to tell, I think, because I'm very aware
that people need to see a decent level of credibility in
what I've been describing to you, and I guess that's always
a difficulty. But all I can really say is I've been aware
of this timeline since the early '70s, too young to understand
what it was at the time. In fact it seemed to me quite an
exciting thing that was going on, and that was the first
time I ever heard of the existence of the "Anglo Saxon Mission."

And
details of what I know, I feel if I started mentioning names
in particular and what was mentioned and where I was at the
time, might compromise the Official Secrets Act, which I'm
still party to in so many aspects. I say the military. Where
it's in a civilian environment, then no; I feel happy talking
about that.

I
wish there was a way that I could describe other events,
which you're aware of, and do so in a manner that would allow
people to understand me far better than I've explained here.
Then they'd see exactly where I'm coming from, where I've
been, and what I've been through. I feel that then people
could rationalize what's been said far better.

But
I do feel that what's been said so far is enough for people,
if they so wish, to have a look themselves and uncover a
few stones. And if anything of significance does come out
of it which other people can corroborate, that would be fantastic.
That would be good, because evidence... You know, I know
it's so crucial to do things like this, and there's no smoking
gun as such. There's only one person reporting something
that happened five years ago, principally, but there is a
much, much larger story around that which you are aware of,
and we need to be extremely careful about where we go with
that.

B: There
are many people, of course, who do have access to the same
information you do. This is something that is known by thousands
of people in finance and the military and politics. It's
widely known. It's a very small proportion of the world's
population, but it's still very widely known.

W: Absolutely.
Yes.

B: And
something that we've always encouraged, and we say it again
here, is that we encourage anyone who has experienced it
first-hand or even at second-hand, any aspect of this, to
please step forward and know that there's safety in numbers.
Know that the more people who break ranks and have the courage
that you have to speak out, the more will be heard, the more
will be understood, and the whole thing will be like a gradually
rolling snowball. The snowball is rolling.
It's quite small, but it is rolling.

W: Oh,
it is. It is. There'll come a time where names will be named
if there's enough public support, and we will demand answers
from those people.

So
when enough fruit from the tree of evidence comes off, then
these people can be properly challenged, and then we can
see a far different story, you know, emerge from the one
that people like myself are giving you. It'll become more
real, far more real. We can do that. We can take people to
task.

B: Okay.
All right. This is very, very important. I want to close
by saying: thank you for your courage, and thank you for
your spirit.